Quite a lot of display placards for the Rugby Creation Science Group - as well as loads and loads of assorted creationist books, leaflets, and DVDs - were on display inside the venue (Rugby Christian Fellowship church). Around 40-50 very normal looking people attended the talk, and the speaker was quite entertaining though a little longwinded. He was introduced as Dr Stephen Hayes, General Practitioner (from Eastleigh) and apple expert (he has a YouTube channel for that).

'Could God have created through evolution?'

He expressed the view that four conditions would have to be met for the (Christian) God to have done this. The key one - which he spent most time on - was that molecules to Man evolution had occurred (as a YEC Christian he made clear through his talk that he had decided that the process could not happen). The other conditions were that such evolution would not violate God's character, that God did not clearly rule out the possibility, and that accepting such evolution would not cause evil or seriously undermine the Christian faith.

Some points in brief:His generalised and non-specific assertion that the claim by evolutionary scientists that natural selection would do immeasurably more than humans' selective breeding could ever do was wrong because the facts show 'the opposite';Though not a bad man (ie not like Stalin or Mao who were evolutionists and atheists) Darwin in his writings was a 'master of sophistry' (he also had a go at Dawkins a couple of times);He stated that genetic mutations are all near-neutral or harmful;He did follow-up on a claimed beneficial mutation, the one that causes sickle cell disease - but also confers resistance to malaria;How on earth could 'DNA check and repair' (which seeks to prevent copying mistakes ie mutations) have come about by evolution?He thought the Krebs Cycle revealed a system that was 'irreducibly complex'.

During Q and A (I had no burning questions/criticisms specific to the talk so kept quiet) he expressed the view that the 'power' behind evolution (which he believes is Satan) wants the church 'extinct'.

He expressed the view that four conditions would have to be met for the (Christian) God to have done this. The key one - which he spent most time on - was that molecules to Man evolution had occurred (as a YEC Christian he made clear through his talk that he had decided that the process could not happen).

Though I sensed that he has very strong opinions Dr Hayes was careful in how he expressed himself and there was very little from what he said in his talk that I felt was misleading or open to question.

But there were some dubious things which came out during the open Q and A session that had me rolling my eyes. These Christians must be very convinced, or feel very pressurised to believe, that the Bible is totally infallible - such that they selectively interpret scientific evidence only in ways which broadly conform to or confirm what little claimed natural history of the planet and origins 'science' is found in the Bible.

The Chair of the meeting and the Group, Dr Barrett, informed everyone that evolution wasn't even a theory, it was a 'failed hypothesis'.

A member of the audience asked "what about dinosaurs". Dr Hayes then confirmed that he has read the official YEC script and stated his view that 'behemoth' was a dinosaur. At least he did not say 'sauropod dinosaur', which of course would be ruled out on the grounds of its massive size - unless one assumes it was a baby. I cannot say for certain behemoth was not some small (now extinct) dinosaur if one species somehow survived the asteroid up until Job's day - if any such creatures wallowed in water amongst reeds, that is. And of course one has to reject Bible translations that say behemoth had a navel rather than merely a belly. I cannot readily think of any extant large reptiles living in the middle east/area where Job was - which makes me think a mammal ie something giving birth to live young may well have been involved (if Job or whoever wrote the book was not invoking something mythical or exaggerating what he saw and he was describing a real, possibly female, animal).

Another audience member complained about George McGavin on the One Show on Monday (just viewed - see around 22 minutes in when he refers to ants from the cretaceous found fossilised in amber and which are very similar to today's ants). The person, sitting just behind me, insisted that McGavin 'shot himself in the foot' about the age because the ants appeared not to have evolved over time (Dr Hayes correctly called this phenomenon stasis). But I do not know what species of ant was involved and whether it really is still around, I do not know how the amber was dated, and I do not know whether the tree species which produced the amber in question is still extant or possibly extinct (and whether it was an early angiosperm or a gymnosperm). However, I hope that these details are given in the BBC Four programme from last night (repeated tomorrow) that McGavin was publicising - see second link.

But this shows how YECs jump in with both feet in without investigating closely.

a_haworthroberts wrote:Another audience member complained about George McGavin on the One Show on Monday (just viewed - see around 22 minutes in when he refers to ants from the cretaceous found fossilised in amber and which are very similar to today's ants). The person, sitting just behind me, insisted that McGavin 'shot himself in the foot' about the age because the ants appeared not to have evolved over time (Dr Hayes correctly called this phenomenon stasis). But I do not know what species of ant was involved and whether it really is still around,

Well, Adnan Oktar would show you a photograph of a modern one - probably made of chocolate.

If you look at Heyes' website you will see he gives lies about the peppered moth and accuses Kettlewell of fraud

The peppered moth experiment is still taught as proving evolution. Apart from the mind numbingly obvious fact that there were both light and dark variants of the moth biston betularia before the changes in tree bark colour discussed in the work, and that therefore it was merely a cyclical variation in slightly different varieties of the same species, it is now established that he researcher Kettlewell faked his results. And yet this is still being hyped by no less an evolutionist than professor Steve Jones, someone who describes Christians as stupid fantasists, as an excellent example of evolution. He is either as thick as he is ill mannered, (which I doubt), completely delf-deceived or a liar to say this. Click here for a detailed discussion of the peppered moth fraud and a couple of other links confirming the truth behind this celebrated 'evidence of evolution' which is nothing but an evolutionist con trick.

The key one - which he spent most time on - was that molecules to Man evolution had occurred (as a YEC Christian he made clear through his talk that he had decided that the process could not happen).

Well it has. The alternative that mud to fully formed perfect man had happened has no research behind it and certainly no evidence So he would clearly be lying on that.

The other conditions were that such evolution would not violate God's character,

And how exactly would it violate God's character? Any more than punishing people for doing something that they did not know was wrong until after they'd done it or drowning innocent children, babies and animals? I suspect it was the old perfect world and how could a loving god have created all that death etc. Except nobody would know what god would think good and as for death - see my first points - they violate Gods character far more.

that God did not clearly rule out the possibility,

Ploughing very slowly and painfully through the bible and nowhere can I find god ruling out any possibilities at all. Especially given you cannot read the garden of eden stuff literally as it only makes sense as metaphor. So another big fat lie from a creationist - quelle supreese.

and that accepting such evolution would not cause evil or seriously undermine the Christian faith.

Except that it is creationism that causes evil and undermines the christian faith. Never met a pleasant creationist and it turns more people off. So more self delusion from a creationist liar. You could have pointed that out in the Q&A

His generalised and non-specific assertion that the claim by evolutionary scientists that natural selection would do immeasurably more than humans' selective breeding could ever do was wrong because the facts show 'the opposite';

I don't understand this, but I guess he was relying on the fact that 99.99% of the audience (with you as the 0.01%) didn't have a clue about any science and couldn't give a flying monkeys either as they were already brain washed by the religious points into blind acceptance. Natural selection of millions of years is incredibly powerful.

Though not a bad man (ie not like Stalin or Mao who were evolutionists and atheists)

Aaargh, well done for not vomiting when you heard this tiresome old crap yet again. What about the Spanish Inquisition whom nobody expects - they weren't atheists. And a long list of other bad religios.

He stated that genetic mutations are all near-neutral or harmful;

And? Its like playing cards, you have a random hand, you pick up, if bad for your hand you discard, if neutral mnah, but if good you keep. Until you get what you want. Natural selection deals with the few beneficial but is very powerful. So he's a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How on earth could 'DNA check and repair' (which seeks to prevent copying mistakes ie mutations) have come about by evolution?

Well I think its called natural selection.

He thought the Krebs Cycle revealed a system that was 'irreducibly complex'.

I doubt it very much! What evidence did he give to prove known chemistry couldn't have come up with it in steps? Let guess here - was it ummmm - none?

he expressed the view that the 'power' behind evolution (which he believes is Satan) wants the church 'extinct'.

I'm afraid I really loathe and detest people who keep telling this lie because it is the only lie necessary to BULLY the hundreds of chirstians who would much rather be allowed to accept science and just get on with their lives and their worshipping without having to be morons!!!!!!! Do you know, much as I hate overuse of the word evil which I've always thought should be reserved for people like Ram Singh, I'm going to make an exception for people who use this lie. Which is a measure of how disgusted with it I am.

what he said in his talk that I felt was misleading or open to question.

Everything you've said was misleading and open to question Ashley. None of it was particularly honest.

These Christians must be very convinced, or feel very pressurised to believe,

I've said before I feel the vast majority are pressurised to believe this crap by people lIke him. Some are convinced others are just liars doing it for egotistical reasons but the vast majority are creationists because they are bullied into being so by being told it is an evil plot of Stalin - who for the record happens to be dead!!!

Well done Ashley. Having attended creationist talks in the past they are incredibly frustrating and not good for blood pressure.

a_haworthroberts wrote:Though I sensed that he has very strong opinions Dr Hayes was careful in how he expressed himself and there was very little from what he said in his talk that I felt was misleading or open to question.

But there were some dubious things which came out during the open Q and A session that had me rolling my eyes. These Christians must be very convinced, or feel very pressurised to believe, that the Bible is totally infallible - such that they selectively interpret scientific evidence only in ways which broadly conform to or confirm what little claimed natural history of the planet and origins 'science' is found in the Bible.

The Chair of the meeting and the Group, Dr Barrett, informed everyone that evolution wasn't even a theory, it was a 'failed hypothesis'.

A member of the audience asked "what about dinosaurs". Dr Hayes then confirmed that he has read the official YEC script and stated his view that 'behemoth' was a dinosaur. At least he did not say 'sauropod dinosaur', which of course would be ruled out on the grounds of its massive size - unless one assumes it was a baby. I cannot say for certain behemoth was not some small (now extinct) dinosaur if one species somehow survived the asteroid up until Job's day - if any such creatures wallowed in water amongst reeds, that is. And of course one has to reject Bible translations that say behemoth had a navel rather than merely a belly. I cannot readily think of any extant large reptiles living in the middle east/area where Job was - which makes me think a mammal ie something giving birth to live young may well have been involved (if Job or whoever wrote the book was not invoking something mythical or exaggerating what he saw and he was describing a real, possibly female, animal).

Another audience member complained about George McGavin on the One Show on Monday (just viewed - see around 22 minutes in when he refers to ants from the cretaceous found fossilised in amber and which are very similar to today's ants). The person, sitting just behind me, insisted that McGavin 'shot himself in the foot' about the age because the ants appeared not to have evolved over time (Dr Hayes correctly called this phenomenon stasis). But I do not know what species of ant was involved and whether it really is still around, I do not know how the amber was dated, and I do not know whether the tree species which produced the amber in question is still extant or possibly extinct (and whether it was an early angiosperm or a gymnosperm). However, I hope that these details are given in the BBC Four programme from last night (repeated tomorrow) that McGavin was publicising - see second link.

But this shows how YECs jump in with both feet in without investigating closely.